R.S.A. No. 5254 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 5254 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.11.2008
Prithvi Raj Singh
..Appellant
v.
Smt. Kashmiri and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R.K. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against the
concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed
by him for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land
and further for permanent injunction seeking restraint against respondent No.1
from interfering into peaceful possession was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff set up his claim on
the property on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 27.10.1989 vide which he
claimed that after payment of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to Girdhari Lal, predecessor-
in-interest of respondents No.1 to 8, possession of the property was delivered to
him and it was on that account that he had become owner of the property. The suit
came to be filed on 21.3.1994, nearly 4-1/2 years after execution of the agreement
to sell. A plea was set up that the sale deed could not be executed for the reason
that there was a restriction on registration of sale deeds by the government. In
fact, a power of attorney had also been executed by Girdhari Lal in favour of
Baldev Singh on the date when the agreement to sell was executed.
The learned court below found that the suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff was hopelessly time-barred as the agreement to sell was executed on
27.10.1989, whereas the suit was filed on 21.3.1994. It was further found that the
appellant-plaintiff had not been able to prove the genuineness of the documents,
namely, agreement to sell and the power of attorney on the basis of which relief
was claimed in the suit.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that the suit
filed by the appellant was not time-barred for the simple reason that there was no
time limit fixed in the agreement to sell for the purpose of execution of the sale
R.S.A. No. 5254 of 2003 [2]
deed and initially the sale deed could not be got registered for the reason that there
was a restriction by the government on execution of sale deeds. However, the
argument is totally misconceived. The learned court below not only found that the
agreement to sell and the power of attorney were forged and fictitious documents
executed under suspicious circumstances, but also found that the appellant-
plaintiff had failed to file a suit for specific performance within 3 years from the
date of alleged agreement to sell dated 27.10.1989. Nothing on record could be
pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant to suggest as to why the suit came
to be filed on 21.3.1994 and what was the immediate cause of action therefor,
especially when the alleged seller-Girdhari Lal had expired. Even his date of death
is also not borne out from the record. From a perusal of the judgment of the lower
appellate court, it is found that the same is based on correct appreciation of
evidence brought on record which cannot be held to be perverse in any manner
whatsoever. No substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
4.11.2008
mk